28 Amendments of Renate WEBER related to 2010/2294(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas furthermore the EU progressively risks to become the target of criticism because of the continuous lack of transparency, openness and access to documents and information for citizens, as demonstrated by the impossibility to adopt a new Regulation on the right of access to documents, due to the Commission refusal to accept Parliament’s amendments and Member States’ unwillingness to open up their documents, discussions and deliberations to citizens and the Parliament,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas further and more stringent measures against corruption should be taken at EU level to ensure that EU institutions are immune from it, at all levels and everywhere, and whereas the EP shall learn from recent negative experiences by elaborating rules, including providing for enhanced transparency, on the relations of MEPs and Parliament’s staff with lobbyists and interest groups,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
Dd. whereas, in order to ensure the accountability and legitimacy of a democratic political system, citizens have a right to know how their representatives act, once elected or appointed to public bodies or representing the Member States at European or international level (principle of accountability), how the decision-making process works (including documents, amendments, timetable, players involved, votes cast, etc), and how public money is allocated, spent and with which results (principle of traceability of funds),
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 15 TFEU and Article 4142 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights introduce a broad notion of the term ‘document’ relating to information whatever its medium of storage,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that interventions by the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the EDPS, which basically take positions on individual cases, cannot replace legislative activity as regards legal certainty and equality before the law; regrets that even when the Court of Justice has established a clear principle, as for example in the Turco case on legislative transparency, it is still not complied with; consequently repeats its call to institutions to abide by the Turco judgment on legal service opinions drafted in the framework of the legislative process; reaffirms that the legislator shall address and overcome the problems highlighted by the Court of Justice jurisprudence and implement the right to access to documents fully and more extensively, in the spirit of the new Treaty modifications clearly establishing a fundamental right of access to documents;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers, in the light of ten years of experience with the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice, that it is necessary to revise that Regulation in order to clarify some of its provisions, narrow its exceptions and ensure that the transparency promised by the Treaties becomes a reality, by strengthening the right of access to documents, without in any way reducing the existing standards for the protection of that right;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the Court of Justice has clarified in the case Sweden v Commission (case C-64/05 P) that Member States do not have an absolute veto right regarding documents originating from them, but only the possibility of an assent procedure, confirming that none of the exceptions to the right of access to documents set out in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable; considers that a legislative clarification is needed in order to ensure the correct application of this case-law to avoid the still existing delays and controversies, as shown by the IFAW case;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls especially on the Council to grant Parliament full access to classified documents connected with international agreements, as provided for by Article 218 TFEU, as well as classified documents connected with EU evaluation procedures, to avoid interinstitutional problems such as were encountered, for example, regarding the EU’s accession to the ECHR, the Schengen evaluation regarding Bulgaria and Romania, ACTA or the EU- China Human Rights dialogue;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that the landmark judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined cases Sweden and Turco v Council stressed an obligation of transparency in the legislative procedure, as ‘openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act’; stresses therefore that any exceptions referring to the legislative procedure, including legal advice and the so-called ‘space to think’, should be extremely limited, if permitted at all;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises that, regardless of this clear principle, this is still not implemented in practice, as shown by the recent judgment in the Access Info Europe case regarding the refusal by the Council to disclose positions of Member States on the proposed recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and by the case ClientEarth v Council, pending before the General Court, on a legal opinion regarding the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; notes that the public disclosure of Member States’ positions during the negotiation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and many subsequent adopted measures did not in any way undermine the decision-making capacity of the Council, since these disclosures did not prevent the successful conclusion of the relevant legislative procedures;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Council to review its rules and extend transparency to the working groups by providing for example minute, expert groups and committees by providing at least the minutes of the discussions, the documents examined, the amendments, the documents approved, the identity of the Member States’ delegations and lists of members; strongly opposes the current practice of such groups, where the deliberations until the final decision are closed to the public, and the use of ‘limited’ documents (a term not deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) for this purpose; opposes as well the practice of unregistered documents, such as room documents;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to make publicly available agendas, minutes and declarations of interests as regards expert groups, and names of members, proceedings and votes of the ‘comitology’ committees, as well as all of the documents considered by such groups and committees, including draft delegated acts and draft implementing acts; calls on the Parliament to adopt a more transparent and open procedures, including internally, to deal with these documents;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that transparency as required by the Treaties is not limited to legislative procedures but includes as well non- legislative work of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; stresses that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the only proper legal act for assessing the right of access to documents, and that other legal acts, such as theinternal or founding regulations of agencinstitutions, agencies and bodies, cannot introduce additional grounds for refusing access;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Regrets that recent negotiations between the EU institutions for a ‘common understanding’ on delegated acts and for a new framework agreement between the Commission and the Parliament have not been fully transparent; commits itself to make fully transparent its negotiations with the Council and Commission for ongoing or future Inter-Institutional Agreements or for comparable agreements;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that the Court of Justice, like all other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, must carry out its work ‘as openly as possible’, pursuant to Article 1 TEU; emphasises that while Article 15 TFEU only specifically applies to the administrative documents of the Court, this does not preclude the adoption of measures on a different legal base, conferring the right of access on other Court documents, in accordance with Article 1 TEU; considers that the current proposal for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice should be amended by the Parliament and Council to adopt rules to this end, and also to adopt rules concerning access to the Court proceedings, as an amicus curie, by EU bodies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency, by civil society organisations and by certain international bodies such as the UNCHR; believes that such rules should be modelled on the best practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Member States’ judicial traditions and the procedures applicable in the courts of some third States;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises that the so-called ‘comitology’, first reading trialogues and the conciliation procedures (as explicitly listed in Article 294 TFEU) are a substantial phase of the legislative procedure, and not a separate ‘space to think’; requests, therefore, that the documents created in their framework should not be treated differently from other legislative documents, and that they should be made publicbelieves that the current procedures fail to ensure a satisfactory level of transparency and access to documents, both internally to the Parliament, and externally in relation to citizens and the public opinion; underlines that the Parliament has a statutory duty to hold its meetings in public and an obligation to publish the documents it examines, notably of legislative nature, as foreseen by the Treaties, jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and its rules of procedure; requests, therefore, that the documents created in their framework should not be treated differently from other legislative documents, and that they should be made public; consequently charges its competent bodies to standardize this procedure and publish such documents and calls other institutions to do the same;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Highlights the need to establish an appropriate equilibrium between transparency and data protection, as made clear by the Bavarian Lager case-law, and stresses that data protection should not be ‘misused’, in particular, for the purpose of covering conflicts of interest and undue influence in the context of EU administration and decision-making; points out that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Bavarian Lager case is based on the current wording of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and does not prevent the legislature from establishing a new equilibrium, which is necessary and urgent notably after the clear proclamation of the right of access to documents in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Reiterates the importance of the principle of traceability, so to ensure that citizens can know how public money is allocated, spent and with which results, and calls EU institutions to apply this principle in relation to the running of the institution and to the policies and funds allocated to implement them, at all levels;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that when international agreements have legislative effects, access should be granted to the public, including access to documents adopted by or submitted to any bodies which have the task of implementing or monitoring the application of such agreements; points out that Parliament, which is elected by the EU citizens, has a speciis entrusted by the Treaties to have an institutional role in representing the public interest; stresses, therefore, the need to fully respect the new prerogatives assigned to Parliament by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of international agreements, and that no bilateral agreements with third countries may prohibit this; expresses its firm determination to make sure that Parliament’s institutional prerogatives as foreseen by Article 218 TFEU are fully respected, including if necessary by bringing other institutions to the Court of Justice;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Emphasises the current lack of coherent EU administrative law, such as rules regarding the delivery of administrative decisions that can be appealed against, or a clear concept of ‘administrative tasks’ as mentioned in Article 15(3) TFEU; calls, therefore, on the EU institutions to urgently define a common EU administrative law, pursuant to Article 298 TFEU, and to provide a common and horizontally applicable definition of an ‘administrative task’ especially for the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the Court of Justice; commits itself to make a recommendation for a legislative proposal on this issue, pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, which should inter alia address the issue of the transparency and accountability of the Commission’s conduct of infringement proceedings to complainants, the Parliament and citizens;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Considers that copyright rules, to the extent that they apply at all to documents within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, cannot be invoked to refuse public access to documents or to prevent the publication of such documents on the Internet;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Reiterates that Parliament should be at the forefront of the proactive approach on publicity, transparency, openness and access to documents and highlights the success of webstreaming of hearings and committee meetings in addition to plenary sittings, and believes that this should become the norm and that the Legislative Observatory (OEIL) should be even further expanded to include all EU official languages and information, both at committee and plenary level, such as amendments, opinions from other committees, Legal Service opinions, voting lists, roll call votes, present and voting MEPs, interinstitutional letters, names of shadow rapporteurs, a ‘search by word’ function, multilingual search, tabling deadlines, RSS feeds, an explanation of the legislative procedure, links to webstreamed discussions, etc.;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes at the same that transparency has to apply to the work of Parliament’s internal bodies (such as the Conference of Presidents, the Bureau and the Quaestors, as well as other temporary or high-level bodies), as well as to MEPs’ activities, such as participation in parliamentary work and parliamentary attendance, under the same terms requested by the Parliament in its resolution of 14 January 2009 and MEPs’ allowances and spending, in conformity with data protection rules and the position taken by the European Ombudsman differentiating between the databases for general expenditure, the pension scheme, parliamentary assistance expenses and travel and subsistence allowances;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Considers that transparency at EU level should be mirrored by Member States when transposing EU legislation into national law, notably by establishing correlation tables, and invites national parliaments and the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union to examine the proposals contained in this resolution and to promote an EU register of parliaments’ and parliamentarians’ activities which could serve to ensure and increase mutual cooperation and consultation between the EU, the Parliament and national parliaments, drawing also on best practice in terms of e-Parliament and e- government transparency;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes some improvements in the registers of the Council and the Commission, but draws attention to the still existing lack of coordination and interoperability between the different institutions, as no common information model for their registers exists that would allow the citizen to find the necessary documents and the information they include at a ‘single point’, as well as to use a common search engine integrally connected notably to the Legislative Observatory (OEIL) where documents pertaining to one legislative procedure are grouped together;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Believes that, in order to make the legislative process more accountable, comprehensible and accessible to the public, Parliament’s committees should in all cases adopt orientation votes prior to entering into trialogues with the Council; the Council, for its part, should adopt ‘general approaches’ or approve negotiating positions agreed in Coreper prior to entering into trialogues with the Parliament, with all such Parliament and Council documents immediately made public; furthermore, to make available to the public the agendas and a summary of the outcome of all trialogue meetings, as well as the ‘four column’ documents drawn up for the purposes of facilitating negotiations, also indicating to citizens the precise state-of-play of each set of ongoing negotiations;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 b (new)
Paragraph 39 b (new)
39b. Calls on the Council and Commission to negotiate with the Parliament to amend the Joint Declaration on the co-decision procedure, and the Inter-Institutional Agreement on better law-making, to this end; commits itself, in the interim, to amend its rules of procedure, including the annexed code of conduct on co-decision negotiations, to give full binding effect to these principles;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that the Interinstitutional Committee established by Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should meet at least once a year, that the results of its deliberations should be public, and that it shouldwork more intensely, report to the competent committees on the issues discussed, on the positions the Parliament defends, on the problematic issues raised by other institutions, as well as on the achievements reached, if any; calls it consequently to meet more regularly and at least 4 times a year and to open up internal discussions and deliberations by ensuring they are public, by inviting and considering submissions from civil society and the European Data Protection Supervisor; the committee should work on an annual ‘audit’ report on transparency and openness in the EU which should be prepared by the European Ombudsman; calls it to urgently address the problems mentioned abovein this resolution;